Call, response on Topic of Audi R-Zero
Blaze on. I hope it is legal where you are.
I would believe new batteries can acquire 180kwh. I agree the car is excessive, but so is an F1 racer. I appreciate that it exists [if it does] for research and medialyte purposes or/and public popularization and attention getting.
I am not interested in electric cars. I perused and engineered some battery cars, and found them somewhat unacceptable. By simply modifying the 1996 EV-1 car, which used lead/acid batteries getting 25kwh, to the new 150kwh liions, you could give it outstanding stats and/or a very long range, or reduce its weight. Weight is a major factor in e- cars. However, it still uses electricity generated from a filthy power plant, and battery technology is rather expensive. I would recommend all cars having their battery augmented by even a modest supercapacitor. I saw how to make a supercap 9v battery, I will test making a supercapacitor 12v battery for auto. Cold start and all that.
Hydrogen gas uncompressed in a 27cc engine produced 76.77hp in-piston at 1000rpm. This is freakish power. I could hold an engine of that size in my hands. To get an engine with midsize car level power, it would only need to be about 2 or 3 times that large, or spin faster depending on the strength of the metal, and a supercar would be cake.
We can get this hydrogen from the technology of water splitting, which i have researched and analyzed extensively. It has many industrio-fiscal side effects, though.
When you discuss hydrogen vs gas here, you are still analyzing force compared to charge. Gas and hydrogen both produce expansion, while battery produces charge. Turning this into torque is the single element that is important in the comparison you raise. Batteries have good torque and a meaningful vehicle can have enough e- motors to produce excellent force. I have noticed the multi-wheel e- vehicles, probably because of the limits on size of an electric motor. This is acceptable. More wheels are more stable and provide better grip [accel] and have few downsizes, except being ugly, but that can be fixed.
Electric transmissions I have read of can be 95.3% efficient, functioning as the wheel of the car. I have also read of multitronic transmissions eliminating the majority of the difficulty of chemical force translation, coming to perhaps 90-95% efficiency. A multitronic has fewer mving parts and is lighter and more efficient than a conventional crankshaft. Making this switch alone, which has no true downside, could save America $billions in fuel of any sort, and equal amounts in auto expense. I believe our consumption is being tailored to meet the needs of a cornering effort, though, accounting for current procedures and levels of marketing approval of alternative energy, organic foods, electric cars, etc. Well, you can read it at my sites. That is a theory I am ironing out in the medium-term.
I know of no way to recharge a chemical battery quickly. You could include compressed air in the vehicle's design to allow it to recharge continually while in operation. With an included compressor, this would allow electrical power to come from battery or turbine, and one could recharge the other, or the secondary could recharge the main if it grows dim. It could have a modest solar array to trickle charge all the time. These elements could all aid in charge level and performance.
Until we develop supercapacitors that can hold meaningful kwh, likely requiring introduction of warm-temperature superconductors and advanced atomic engineering [~spurred on by development of nanorobotics and 3D-printing, which will ~have to wait until after 2012, and new atomic and electromagnetic science popularized via water splitting] battery vehicles will be more limited.
If I were to tell you one thing, it would be Jesus Christ is the son of God. The second thing would be water splitting/fracturing.
X this by transportation reform, energy and power generation restructuring and decentralization.
Mans wrote:
> Hydrogen is less efficient well to wheels than pure battery electric. Well to wheels, hydrogen fuel cell car is about as efficient as internal combustion engine car, ~12%. Battery electric car is ~30% eff well to wheels. Forgive me in case I happen to be incoherent as I am drunk/stoned as I type this, but as an engineer, I have examined the possibilities for renewable energy. Excellent video, but hydrogen does not meet the hype. R-Zero is a silly, stupid vehicle. Its battery pack would be enough to give five midsize electric cars with no special attention to aerodynamic or rolling drag eff 200 miles range per charge. Anything over 2,500 pounds is extraneous weight for motorsport or canyon driving according to the folks at mulhollandraceway.org. The Audi R-zero has as much in common with a 'sports car' as a battle tank has in common with a farm tractor. Judging by the computer rendered images, Audi never built the R-Zero, even if the technology may be there to build it. Judging by the car's top speed of 286 mph, it has a Cd*A of ~5.5 ft^2, which given that Li Ion batteries are 150 Wh/kg, would have a battery pack ~180 kWh capacity. This would be 540 miles range or so at 65 mph for the R-Zero. But I don't think Audi ever built a working example of the car, even if technology may be there. If you have questions, please PM me. You would be wise to research the Eliica from Keio University in Japan. I'm going to go smoke another bowl. :-)
I would believe new batteries can acquire 180kwh. I agree the car is excessive, but so is an F1 racer. I appreciate that it exists [if it does] for research and medialyte purposes or/and public popularization and attention getting.
I am not interested in electric cars. I perused and engineered some battery cars, and found them somewhat unacceptable. By simply modifying the 1996 EV-1 car, which used lead/acid batteries getting 25kwh, to the new 150kwh liions, you could give it outstanding stats and/or a very long range, or reduce its weight. Weight is a major factor in e- cars. However, it still uses electricity generated from a filthy power plant, and battery technology is rather expensive. I would recommend all cars having their battery augmented by even a modest supercapacitor. I saw how to make a supercap 9v battery, I will test making a supercapacitor 12v battery for auto. Cold start and all that.
Hydrogen gas uncompressed in a 27cc engine produced 76.77hp in-piston at 1000rpm. This is freakish power. I could hold an engine of that size in my hands. To get an engine with midsize car level power, it would only need to be about 2 or 3 times that large, or spin faster depending on the strength of the metal, and a supercar would be cake.
We can get this hydrogen from the technology of water splitting, which i have researched and analyzed extensively. It has many industrio-fiscal side effects, though.
When you discuss hydrogen vs gas here, you are still analyzing force compared to charge. Gas and hydrogen both produce expansion, while battery produces charge. Turning this into torque is the single element that is important in the comparison you raise. Batteries have good torque and a meaningful vehicle can have enough e- motors to produce excellent force. I have noticed the multi-wheel e- vehicles, probably because of the limits on size of an electric motor. This is acceptable. More wheels are more stable and provide better grip [accel] and have few downsizes, except being ugly, but that can be fixed.
Electric transmissions I have read of can be 95.3% efficient, functioning as the wheel of the car. I have also read of multitronic transmissions eliminating the majority of the difficulty of chemical force translation, coming to perhaps 90-95% efficiency. A multitronic has fewer mving parts and is lighter and more efficient than a conventional crankshaft. Making this switch alone, which has no true downside, could save America $billions in fuel of any sort, and equal amounts in auto expense. I believe our consumption is being tailored to meet the needs of a cornering effort, though, accounting for current procedures and levels of marketing approval of alternative energy, organic foods, electric cars, etc. Well, you can read it at my sites. That is a theory I am ironing out in the medium-term.
I know of no way to recharge a chemical battery quickly. You could include compressed air in the vehicle's design to allow it to recharge continually while in operation. With an included compressor, this would allow electrical power to come from battery or turbine, and one could recharge the other, or the secondary could recharge the main if it grows dim. It could have a modest solar array to trickle charge all the time. These elements could all aid in charge level and performance.
Until we develop supercapacitors that can hold meaningful kwh, likely requiring introduction of warm-temperature superconductors and advanced atomic engineering [~spurred on by development of nanorobotics and 3D-printing, which will ~have to wait until after 2012, and new atomic and electromagnetic science popularized via water splitting] battery vehicles will be more limited.
If I were to tell you one thing, it would be Jesus Christ is the son of God. The second thing would be water splitting/fracturing.
X this by transportation reform, energy and power generation restructuring and decentralization.
Mans wrote:
> Hydrogen is less efficient well to wheels than pure battery electric. Well to wheels, hydrogen fuel cell car is about as efficient as internal combustion engine car, ~12%. Battery electric car is ~30% eff well to wheels. Forgive me in case I happen to be incoherent as I am drunk/stoned as I type this, but as an engineer, I have examined the possibilities for renewable energy. Excellent video, but hydrogen does not meet the hype. R-Zero is a silly, stupid vehicle. Its battery pack would be enough to give five midsize electric cars with no special attention to aerodynamic or rolling drag eff 200 miles range per charge. Anything over 2,500 pounds is extraneous weight for motorsport or canyon driving according to the folks at mulhollandraceway.org. The Audi R-zero has as much in common with a 'sports car' as a battle tank has in common with a farm tractor. Judging by the computer rendered images, Audi never built the R-Zero, even if the technology may be there to build it. Judging by the car's top speed of 286 mph, it has a Cd*A of ~5.5 ft^2, which given that Li Ion batteries are 150 Wh/kg, would have a battery pack ~180 kWh capacity. This would be 540 miles range or so at 65 mph for the R-Zero. But I don't think Audi ever built a working example of the car, even if technology may be there. If you have questions, please PM me. You would be wise to research the Eliica from Keio University in Japan. I'm going to go smoke another bowl. :-)
posted by William Bunker at 3:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home